I’ve copied this in from a reply to another to another thread, as it’s relevant to this thread - and I’m a lazy git.

Viewed from an ethnographic perspective, autism is too often described as a constellation of medicalised differences and deficits. This erodes and degrades the public perception of autism. Consequently, a positive interpretation that would allow an autistic contribution to human diversity and creativity, is buried beneath an ever increasing mountain of research that separates and divides autism from the general population.

Prevailing biological and psychological descriptions of autism as ‘other’, fail to appreciate the reality of autistic experience, its authenticity, and ignore social context.

The biomedical representation of autism employs similar discourse to that used in the study of cancer and neurodegenerative disease. Social distinctions are mistakenly described as biological. This prevents the emergence of an autistic culture and sociality that could enrich society through its unique perspective and enable autism to play a fulfilling and positive role.

Anyone interested in a study examining transnational and cultural contexts regarding autism, will find an essay here.  http://oro.open.ac.uk/46508/

Just catching up on reading now that the youngest is in bed and the older two have gone out to a fireworks display!

This part of the conclusion to the study is good

"The analytic of epistemic communities can be useful to theorise and account for multiple perspectives and experiences rather than assuming that autism (or any other identity or experiential category) is a singular category or experience."

With regards to any condition it is important not to lose sight of people's humanity. We are more than just a label. Just because someone fits neatly into a diagnostic category does not mean that they become a deindividuated clone of that condition. Everyone, with or without neurological/other condition has different experiences/opinions/etc and it is incredibly important to never lose sight of this.

This bit is also good:

"Examine the impacts of state provision and the economics of support/welfare. A comparative approach enables critical autism studies to examine the ways in which dominant neuro-biological constructions of autism (that span our cultural contexts and are evident in others internationally) take on different forms within different care systems and hence shape provision. Depending upon the definition and the pathology model in use, different treatments are provided (Block & Cavalcante, 2014, Cavalcante, 2003). For example, in Sweden the support offered is guided by the “normalization principle” in which it is stressed that “everyone is of equal value and has equal rights” (National Board of Health and Welfare [NBHW], 2009) at the same time as what is normal and what is included in a normal life is defined from a non-autistic perspective. These principles guide policies and programmes in the field of autism, such as support for finding employment in which being an adult citizen is intimately linked to engagement in work. This might be beneficial for some, but it narrowly constructs productivity and citizenship in neoliberal terms of one’s contribution to the work force. For example, the challenge in Sweden is how to reconcile an approach to welfare state support for people with autism that is guided by a care ethic stressing the rights of disabled people to meaningful employment and participation in society, with an increasingly neoliberal approach that measure one’s productivity in terms of labour force participation, stressing the obligation for all citizens to participate in society through work (Nouf et al, manus). It is clear that governments and financial 19 constraints are significantly affecting the level of support offered for those who need it. In Canada, for instance, where citizens enjoy universal health insurance, recent legal cases have tested the requirement to provide care for children on the autism spectrum (Orsini, 2009; Orsini and Smith, 2010). In the UK changes to the ‘welfare’ system has eroded significantly support and provision for disabled people including those with autism."

It is important that the social model is more accepted by the government and health service so that the autism services provided act to support the autistic person to reach their full potential and effectively manage their symptoms rather than trying to fix them. It is absolutely imperative that 'everyone is of equal value and has equal rights'! There should never be undervaluing of any person due to them suffering from any condition and everyone should have equal rights, even those who have impairment to their mental capacity in one area or another should still be supported to make decisions for themselves as much as is possible and within the parameters set out in the MCA and DOLS. Anyone should have choice as to what constitutes a normal life for them. 

All Quotes taken from 

Just catching up on reading now that the youngest is in bed and the older two have gone out to a fireworks display!

This part of the conclusion to the study is good

"The analytic of epistemic communities can be useful to theorise and account for multiple perspectives and experiences rather than assuming that autism (or any other identity or experiential category) is a singular category or experience."

With regards to any condition it is important not to lose sight of people's humanity. We are more than just a label. Just because someone fits neatly into a diagnostic category does not mean that they become a deindividuated clone of that condition. Everyone, with or without neurological/other condition has different experiences/opinions/etc and it is incredibly important to never lose sight of this.

This bit is also good:

"Examine the impacts of state provision and the economics of support/welfare. A comparative approach enables critical autism studies to examine the ways in which dominant neuro-biological constructions of autism (that span our cultural contexts and are evident in others internationally) take on different forms within different care systems and hence shape provision. Depending upon the definition and the pathology model in use, different treatments are provided (Block & Cavalcante, 2014, Cavalcante, 2003). For example, in Sweden the support offered is guided by the “normalization principle” in which it is stressed that “everyone is of equal value and has equal rights” (National Board of Health and Welfare [NBHW], 2009) at the same time as what is normal and what is included in a normal life is defined from a non-autistic perspective. These principles guide policies and programmes in the field of autism, such as support for finding employment in which being an adult citizen is intimately linked to engagement in work. This might be beneficial for some, but it narrowly constructs productivity and citizenship in neoliberal terms of one’s contribution to the work force. For example, the challenge in Sweden is how to reconcile an approach to welfare state support for people with autism that is guided by a care ethic stressing the rights of disabled people to meaningful employment and participation in society, with an increasingly neoliberal approach that measure one’s productivity in terms of labour force participation, stressing the obligation for all citizens to participate in society through work (Nouf et al, manus). It is clear that governments and financial 19 constraints are significantly affecting the level of support offered for those who need it. In Canada, for instance, where citizens enjoy universal health insurance, recent legal cases have tested the requirement to provide care for children on the autism spectrum (Orsini, 2009; Orsini and Smith, 2010). In the UK changes to the ‘welfare’ system has eroded significantly support and provision for disabled people including those with autism."

It is important that the social model is more accepted by the government and health service so that the autism services provided act to support the autistic person to reach their full potential and effectively manage their symptoms rather than trying to fix them. It is absolutely imperative that 'everyone is of equal value and has equal rights'! There should never be undervaluing of any person due to them suffering from any condition and everyone should have equal rights, even those who have impairment to their mental capacity in one area or another should still be supported to make decisions for themselves as much as is possible and within the parameters set out in the MCA and DOLS. Anyone should have choice as to what constitutes a normal life for them. 

All Quotes taken from